Spolsky’s Model of Language Policy: 3 noteworthy components revealing secrets of everyday language experiences

Introduction: Contextualising language policy to language teaching and language learning

Upon encountering the title, you may be pondering two key questions: first, how does language policy connect with our daily language encounters, beyond its perceived potential negative impact? And second, in what ways can Spolsky’s Model of Language Policy be beneficial for those involved in language education?

Typically, we conceive of language policy as falling within the purview of political and public administrative entities, tasked with regulating languages and their usage in a given country or region. Such regulation is enacted through a range of mechanisms, including legislation, court rulings, and policy directives, all of which are shaped by socio-political forces. Examples of such language planning policies can be the official languages recognised in a country’s constitution and the medium of instruction to be used in schools.

Yet, these examples serve as only a glimpse into the broader spectrum of meanings and implications associated with language policy. All of us have experienced other forms of language policy implemented in our daily lives, without realising that each and every form is also a “language policy”. Some illustrative examples are as follows:

• You are part of a multilingual family. Both your parents come from different countries and speak different native languages. Your parents insist that you should be speaking their native languages too, other than the dominant language in the country (e.g. English) in which you are staying. Your parents enforce this requirement at home, even though you may prefer speaking the English language. This is an example of a family language policy.
• You work in a multinational corporation with business in China. You have learned Mandarin to a proficient level and is very confident that you can interact with the native speakers of Mandarin in China. You finally got a posting to China which you are excited about. However, upon reporting at the branch in China, you realised that all your colleagues use English at the workplace, regardless of nationality and even when they are Chinese citizens. This is an example of a workplace language policy.
• You are a student in a German primary school. Your classmates speak an assortment of heritage languages, even though the medium of instruction is German. On paper, all classes in the school are to be conducted in German exclusively. However, your classmates tend to slip in and out of their heritage languages in your Math class. Your Math teacher seems to approve that linguistic behaviour. This is an example of a classroom language policy – that deviates from the official policy.
• You wrote an aggressive post laid with profanities on your social media account. You got called out by your peers and public viewers commenting on your use of language. All parties involved, including the social media company, order you to take down your post. This is an example of a social language policy.

The list can go on, and we can glide into other domains to illustrate how language policies manifest themselves. These policies play a role in shaping the language experiences and depictions of various languages and their varieties among our learners. Depending on the context, the outcomes for language education can either be favorable or counterproductive to our intended goals. As language educators, our primary concern then becomes: are we sufficiently aware of these policies to respond appropriately? 

Language Policy as defined by Spolsky

One of the most influential scholars on language policy is Dr Bernard Spolsky. Bernard Spolsky was a Professor Emeritus in the Department of English Literature and Linguistics at Bar-Ilan University (Israel) and have extensive expertise in the fields of sociolinguistics, educational linguistics, language assessment and linguistic landscapes. Scholars who study language policy will generally have engaged Spolsky’s framework of language policy.

As with many concepts within linguistics, there is not one universal definition or approach to language policy. However, Bernard Spolsky theorises language policy in a way that allowed a wider scope of applications (2004) . Under his definition, language policy refers to “all the language practices, beliefs and management decisions of a community or polity”.

When we closely examine the definition, we come to understand that the architects of language policy are not exclusively confined to government officials or politicians; they can be any member or members of a particular speech community.

In cases where practices and beliefs come into play, we might find that these “policies” exist on a spectrum, ranging from explicit declarations and implementations to implicit enforcement and lived experiences. In studying language policy, one of the main goals is then to understand how non-language variables interact with the language variables.

In this sense, researching into language policy is very much like studying theoretical linguistics or linguistics in general, where the data comes from a variety of authentic sources and the researcher needs to identify and consolidate “rule-governed patterns” that explain the policy.

As such, beyond the traditional domains of policy (e.g. approaches to national language policies), Spolsky’s theory of language policy has been frequently applied in studies on different areas of language education policy (e.g. language of instruction, role of English and local language) and social language policy (e.g. language rights of specific minority groups). 

Spolsky’s Model of Language Policy Unpacked

What then are the components in Spolsky’s Model of Language Policy? In other words, what should we be looking out for to form a holistic representation of language policy? If we recall Spolsky’s definition earlier, we will notice that the 3 components have been pronounced clearly – language practices, language beliefs and language management.

In theory, one can apply these three components on a broad scale, such as examining language policies across “Western civilisations” in comparison to Eastern civilisations. Conversely, they can also be employed on a more focused level, such as analysing the language policies within a particular family unit (e.g. language policy of the Williams family)

Regardless of the choice of scope, a researcher who applies the theory is required to construct a holistic picture of language policy in that context. This means that he/she is compelled to identify generalised patterns from data collected on the 3 components in that community or polity.

Can the 3 components be studied in isolation under the frame of language policy? Arguably yes, though we need to understand that language and language policy exist in “highly complex, interacting and dynamic contexts”, where various factors have in some ways interaction with one another. For instance, anyone who seeks to interfere with the language practices through public education would have to manage both supporting forces from language beliefs and language management.

Language policy can exist at the micro level of linguistic units (e.g. stop using such dirty words in media) or at the macro level of language/variety choices (e.g. use English only in our country). In that consideration, the 3 components may be refined to account for the different levels of generalisation in actual research.

Component 1: Language Practices

LANGUAGE PRACTICES can be largely defined as the natural, regular or typical linguistic practices adopted by the members of the targeted speech community across various sociolinguistic domains. These practices depict the patterns among variations of language use and represent the linguistic repertoire of the community or polity in question.

What exactly does LANGUAGE PRACTICES comprise? In delineating the details, linguists can refer to different components of the language system and illustrate the specific choices made and patterns demonstrated by the speech community on the specific components in question (e.g. use of words and idiomatic expressions, patterns in pronunciation, grammatical choices, formality patterns for specific speech acts). This can be actively compared and contrasted with other comparable groups. 

The basic intuition in the approach of identifying LANGUAGE PRACTICES, for any untrained layperson, may be to look for evidence of the use of named languages. Yet, the boundaries between languages and varieties can be so fuzzy that we can hardly pinpoint which is which with scientific confidence. How can we decide where to demarcate American English, British English, Canadian English and Australian English? How do we draw the lines between neighbouring varieties across the German-Dutch borders? This is also the reason why Spolsky (2017) advocated for the use of “repertoires” instead of “languages”, as aligned with translanguaging scholars.

As such, trained linguists studying LANGUAGE PRACTICES are mindful in identifying variation in language use (e.g. not pre-determining a closed set of languages to be observed in the collected data); and careful in categorising and labelling the linguistic variants. This is even so when actual language use can involve code-switching and language alternation.

In addition, the LANGUAGE PRACTICES may not necessarily align with the declared language policy (e.g. heritage languages are used in class by students and teachers even though the official medium of instruction is English) – a classic example of deviation between explicit policy versus practice. 

Beyond that, linguists also seek to explain the variation in relation to the social factors characterising the community under study, such as the age, gender, social class, place of birth and education levels. This then accounts for the language situation more holistically. 

LANGUAGE PRACTICES have profound impact on language educational outcomes. Learners develop and expand their language repertoires in relation to quantity and quality of input from the various languages or varieties that are prevalent in their linguistic environment – through their interaction with their caregivers, relatives, teachers and peers. 

With extensive presence of LANGUAGE PRACTICES in targeted languages/varieties, learners are then able to represent and acquire the necessary features for them to operate effectively in the various speech communities across different domains (e.g. formal vs informal, academic vs daily). 

What are the LANGUAGE PRACTICES present in our learners’ environment? How are these LANGUAGE PRACTICES demonstrated in our classrooms or our homes? How close or distant are they from our targeted LANGUAGE PRACTICES? These are good questions for our reflection as we also work on our approaches to guide our learners.

Component 2: Language Beliefs

LANGUAGE BELIEFS refer to the consensus of a speech community on the value attributed to different languages and varieties – and the ways they are used specifically – that come in contact with the community. These languages and varieties may be part of the repertoire of the community, but may also be external to the community (e.g. foreign languages known to a country but not spoken by its citizens). Beliefs can drive motivation to learn a specific language/variety and reflect the power relations between languages/varieties in a speech community.

Unlike language practices that are more observable and can be documented well with the necessary tools, LANGUAGE BELIEFS are associated with language ideologies and require sophisticated processes to account for reliably and accurately. For example, direct questioning (e.g. what language/variety do you value the most and why?) can elicit LANGUAGE BELIEFS to a certain extent, but some people may be amenable to hide their most truthful beliefs in favour of social signalling while some others may not even be aware of their own beliefs.

As such, findings on LANGUAGE BELIEFS have higher validity when a battery of measures targeting both explicit and implicit elicitations are used. LANGUAGE BELIEFS can also be studied alongside language practices for triangulation purposes, based on the research finding that beliefs do drive practices.

There are two main themes when the issue of LANGUAGE BELIEFS is engaged:

• Instrumentality: which languages/varieties have higher instrumental value as perceived by the speech community? In other words, which languages/varieties lead to better life outcomes, characterised usually by economic opportunities and administrative convenience? For example, English holds dominating instrumental significance due to its widespread use in global commerce, technology, and administration; while Mandarin’s instrumental importance is also ascending, reflecting the increasing influence of China on the international stage.
• Identity: which languages/varieties represent the speech community best? Are they inherently identified with the community internally (i.e. by members of the community) and externally (i.e. outsiders of the community)? Identity may not always be in conflict with instrumentality (e.g. speakers with English as native language will use English as an instrument of communication and relate to it as an identity construct). However, this theme is especially important in situations where the languages/varieties to which the speech community has emotional attachment deviates from the ones with instrumental values – tension between the languages/varieties that assert identity and the languages/varieties that espouse instrumentality (e.g. heritage language learners). This theme can also be important at the national level, where nation-state governments may mandate the learning of international or regional languages (e.g. English, Mandarin) for instrumental value and the national languages or indigenous languages for identity.

With the close relationship between LANGUAGE BELIEFS and practices, it is unsurprising to note the impact of LANGUAGE BELIEFS on language educational outcomes. Language learners are also social agents who will respond to social signals from the people in their linguistic environment, even if they are not aware of the choices they are making.

A young child connects with the immediate caregivers’ languages/varieties with safety and comfort; a student conceives that the languages/varieties used by the school authoritative figures are the emblems for progression; an adult recognises that the languages/varieties used by the powerful elites in the society are associated with social and economic capital. With the positive values attributed to the languages/varieties in question, the learners will be more motivated to learn and use them in contrast to others.

So, what are our own LANGUAGE BELIEFS? How do our LANGUAGE BELIEFS connect with the choices we make in our language educational processes? What are the LANGUAGE BELIEFS of our learners? How can they be influenced to be in favour of the targeted language educational outcomes?

Component 3: Language Management

LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT generally refers to specific efforts by interested parties (or “language managers”) to change or adjust the language practices and/or beliefs of a targeted speech community. Note that language managers can include governments and policymakers, authority figures in a family, school leaders and classroom teachers, organisation owners and executive managers, etc.

The basic assumption of LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT is that language practices and beliefs are amenable to change, leading to language shifts. Language shifts can be gradual, exemplified by the enduring effects of national language policies. Over generations, individuals are socialised into embracing specific values linked to various languages or varieties, resulting in evolving language practices. Take for instance, the long-lasting influence of the “Speak Mandarin Campaign”in Singapore, which has shaped the language choices of Chinese Singaporeans, fostering the use of Mandarin as a common language among ethnic Chinese while diminishing the prominence of other Chinese varieties. 

On the flip side, major language shifts may also arise, such as forced migration to a foreign country due to unforeseen circumstances. This prompts a swift restructuring of value relations among different languages or varieties to adapt to the new host country. For instance, Syrians forced to seek refuge in the UK experience an urgent need to learn and use English in response to the language management in the new host country, superseding their previous exclusive use of Arabic.

LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT can be explicitly declared and evidently experienced. Classic examples of such are the recognition of official languages and the medium of instruction used in schools. Official languages fundamentally mandate the boundaries of language access and use in specific contexts (especially with essential public services), enabling the recognised languages to hold prominence in the daily lives of the citizens.

On the other hand, the medium of instruction (usually also an official language or an international language) necessitates access to general education and social mobility through the designated language/variety. This somewhat coerces all students in the school/institution in question to learn that language/variety as a pre-requisite for any form of educational success. In response to this, families do reconfigure their language practices and beliefs to pave the way for a greater chance of success for their children.

“But language policy exists even where it has not been made explicit or established by authority.”

Spolsky, 2004 (Language Policy)

It is by no surprise that both official languages and medium of instruction are powerful instruments used by language managers to modify language practices and beliefs, with very observable effects.

That said and all, LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT can also take implicit forms and result in subtle changes. Institutions with specialised expertise lobbying for wider use of certain languages/varieties may choose to publish their content in those languages/varieties; business owners may choose to only do business or make concessions for partners using their preferred languages/varieties; residents of a city may choose to only reply tourists in their native language/variety – these deliberate actions may not be formally declared to publicise a stance, but can build up a sense of importance in the selected languages/varieties for those contexts.

Language educators should be cognisant of the fact that they are also language managers. At the heart of what we do, we are moulding the language practices of our learners guided by our vision of the desired standards in the target language or varieties we are teaching or planning for.

Plus, we are likely striving to influence their attitudes, fostering an appreciation for the significance of the target language or its varieties in particular domains. In a sense, we are encouraging them to establish expectations for their language proficiency that correspond to the standards we aim to achieve.

Yet, we should also remember that we are not the sole language managers that exist alongside our learners. We need to ride on the wave or grapple with the official languages and medium of instruction, depending on whether they are aligned with our target language(s). We also need to navigate our scope of influence alongside other stronger forces of LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT (e.g. peer influence, media). Most importantly, we have to manage by staying learner-centred, where their core interests matter most.

The questions then are: what are our LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT strategies (which include but is not limited to our teaching and learning approaches)? How effective are these strategies, considering the group of language managers that support our cause in relation to those that oppose?

One last point, usually overlooked, is that our learners are also self-managing language managers. They have their own language practices and beliefs, and may also seek to influence us in the process. Our job is made much easier if we are aligned with our learners, but the challenge comes and remains our commitment to face when we are not aligned.

Making a difference in language education, one sip at a time. Support my work with a coffee?

Conclusion: Exploring Spolsky’s Model in the case of our language classrooms

Through the introduction of Spolsky’s Model of Language Policy, this article has expanded the notion of language policy that transcends those perceived by the general public. It gives us a more holistic representation of what a language policy may look like in a given context, through the combination from generalisation across the 3 components. It is also useful in providing us specific lenses to zoom in to a specific component to discuss deeply in a particular issue. Most importantly, it gives us the awareness and simple tools to understand and shape the language experiences of our learners.